Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Because we tend to rely heavily on science.:)

Atheists claim to rely heavily on science. Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists claiming this.

Malty_T wrote: »

I hate when religious arguments resort to using science to proof/disprove God - utterly pointless.

Agreed with the caveat above.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists claim to rely heavily on science. Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists/theists claiming this.

That's my problem too.

Too many zealots (atheist and theist) try to use science as a validation for their beliefs or lack of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4. Indoctrinating your children is a form of child abuse. Also, from Dicky.

This is one of his more misrepresented arguments and I would be with you in disagreeing with it if it was exactly as you present it above. However it is not indoctrination that this part of his book was aimed at.

What he actually says is that labeling the children is akin to child abuse. Although I think the phrase "child abuse" is pointlessly over the top, the argument underneath it is sound and goes like this:

You would, I hope, cringe before saying something like "my 5 year old son is a republican" or "my 7 year old daughter is a feminist" and so on. For the same reason one should cringe before saying "my 5 year old son is a Muslim". Children of certain ages are not old enough to have political or religious affiliations and labeling them as having one is to project what you are on to them, which is not a nice thing to do to anyone.

redfacedbear

'I don't believe in god 'cause religion class is soooo boring and I don't want to do it anymore'

doctoremma

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Another argument I hate from atheists is:

4. Indoctrinating your children is a form of child abuse. Also, from Dicky.

I wouldn't dismiss this so lightly. I have read horror stories of people's struggle to leave a religion, of how they were treated by parents, by friends. All because they were indoctrinated without being asked.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although I think the phrase "child abuse" is pointlessly over the top, the argument underneath it is sound and goes like this:

He's using a rherotical trick / rabbel rousing technique by using the word "abuse" as it has emotive connotations in the venacular and in the literal.

Plenty of people label their kids in all sorts of ways. I bought my two nephews rugby jerseys for their birthdays and I'll be doing the same at Christmas.

This is the specific intent of brainwashing them to like sport and rugby and hopefully be good at it.

Are my "abusing" them?

ShooterSF

redfacedbear wrote: »

'I don't believe in god 'cause religion class is soooo boring and I don't want to do it anymore'

Well if you can disregard god to the trash pile of beliefs because you're bored of him you probably don't REALLY believe anyways....

Tim Robbins

doctoremma wrote: »

I wouldn't dismiss this so lightly. I have read horror stories of people's struggle to leave a religion, of how they were treated by parents, by friends. All because they were indoctrinated without being asked.

Well they would be in the minority and probably greatly out number by the children who find in comforting thinking their parents / grandparent are going to heaven when they die.

You are dumbing it down and just looking at the one side.

Typical Dicky Dawkins style.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well they would be in the minority and probably greatly out number by the children who find in comforting thinking their parents / grandparent are going to heaven when they die.

You are dumbing it down and just looking at the one side.

Typical Dicky Dawkins style.

Surely indoctrinating a child so he is comforted regardless of whether you know what your teaching him is right or wrong is dumbing it down?

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely indoctrinating a child so he is comforted regardless of whether you know what your teaching him is right or wrong is dumbing it down?

No, because you can make plausable arguments that it alleviates pain and heart braking torture even if you are wrong.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists claiming this.

Which atheists have claimed this? I certainly don't recall any, though I do see plenty of religious people claiming that lots of atheists say this.

Revelation-based religions such as christianity fail not because there's no evidence to support them one way or the other, but primarily because of their many epistemological and logical problems.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No, because you can make plausable arguments that it alleviates pain and heart braking torture even if you are wrong.

I really don't want to go off topic as I'm enjoying this thread.
I don't disagree with what you said but did you answer what i asked? Is comfort at the cost of (investigating) truth dumbing things down?

If a kids pet dies and I tell him he went to live on a farm far away it's dumbing things down to comfort him.

Morbert

The claim that the question of God can be answered scientifically (Though there are Christians as well as atheists who use this argument.)

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Is comfort at the cost of (investigating) truth dumbing things down?

Well it depends what you mean by "things?"

Does "things" include mental health / emotions of a human? Well then the answer would be no.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it depends what you mean by "things?"

Does "things" include mental health / emotions of a human? Well then the answer would be no.

No I mean the child's intelligence i.e dumbing down...

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are my "abusing" them?

Did anyone say you were?

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

No I mean the child's intelligence i.e dumbing down...

It would be a very hard argument to make that you were dumbing down a child's intelligence by indoctrinating them.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did anyone say you were?

Dawkins argument is that indoctrination is a form of abuse. If you looks at other forms of indoctrination, it would shows the problems with this argument and refutts Dawkins' argument unless you are logically differentiate why some forms of indoctrination are abusive and others aren't or unless you consistently argue all forms of indoctrination are abusive.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that indoctrination is a form of abuse.

Did not read my post at all did you? This is not his argument. I have read the book. I told you what his argument was. It was against labeling, not indoctrination. I also said I wholly agree the term abuse was effective but unnecessarily over the top.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have read the book.

I have also read it.

I also said I wholly agree the term abuse was effective but unnecessarily over the top.

Well I am now confused because it sounds like you "wholly" agree with me.

My argument centered on the word "abuse" specifically in the context he uses it which is "child abuse".

I don't have the book beside me and I can't recall whether he was referring to indoctrination, labelling or both. But it doesn't change argument. Labelling neccessitates indoctrination, indoctrination neccessitates labelling. So you are getting down to semantics really that don't really change my argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have also read it.

I heartily recommend a re-read.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I am now confused because it sounds like you "wholly" agree with me.

Yes, you are confused but it is easily solved and there is no telling if it is a failure with you or one of who I have been phrasing myself, nor does that matter. I shall try again.

I wholly agree with you on ONE thing. That is the phrase used was pointless and misleading and over the top. However we clearly disagree on the point he actually made and what it was, which is not surprising as you just mentioned you can not even remember clearly yourself.

Labelling someone before they have a chance to decide for themselves is not a very nice thing to do. Especially when they are at an age where they CAN NOT decide for themselves on a given subject. If this is what you want to do, so be it. I am merely pointing out that what Dawkins, and I, agree on is that this is a nasty thing to do.

Just like you wouldnt call a child of 5 a "republican" I would not call him a "muslim" either. He simply does not know what he is and it is not for me to tell him.

As for indoctrination, it appears to be worth pointing out at this point that it can mean different things to different people. If it merely means to you that you introduce the child to something (a religion, rugby, etc) then you will find no fight from me and I would not use the word here myself. Which is why I asked above if someone was calling you abusive for buying a rugby top.

If it were to mean however, the forcing of a beleif or other on a child to the detriment and even the wholesale avoidance of all other things, I would be of a different mindset. Buy your kids rugby tops all you want, but if they come home some day and say "Daddy I want to play soccer" or "Daddy I want to be a muslim" and you say "No son, youre a rugbyplayer/Christian and that is that" or "No son, Islam/soccer is evil and Chritianity/Rugby is the only true and good one" then this is a different kettle of fish. That is what indoctrination means to me, trying to make someone something and avoiding allowing them to be anything else.

In other words, to repeat, labeling a kid as what you want it to be, and telling the kid that that is what it is, is a nasty thing to do. Introduce them to rugby all you like, but do not presume to tell them "You ARE a rugby player, that is what you ARE".

Clearly there is a difference between introducing someone to a sport/belief and indoctrinating them into it therefore. As with most words however people can correctly enough use it for both cases and clearly miss what the other person is actually saying.

farna_boy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I heartily recommend a re-read.



Yes, you are confused but it is easily solved and there is no telling if it is a failure with you or one of who I have been phrasing myself, nor does that matter. I shall try again.

I wholly agree with you on ONE thing. That is the phrase used was pointless and misleading and over the top. However we clearly disagree on the point he actually made and what it was, which is not surprising as you just mentioned you can not even remember clearly yourself.

Labelling someone before they have a chance to decide for themselves is not a very nice thing to do. Especially when they are at an age where they CAN NOT decide for themselves on a given subject. If this is what you want to do, so be it. I am merely pointing out that what Dawkins, and I, agree on is that this is a nasty thing to do.

Just like you wouldnt call a child of 5 a "republican" I would not call him a "muslim" either. He simply does not know what he is and it is not for me to tell him.

As for indoctrination, it appears to be worth pointing out at this point that it can mean different things to different people. If it merely means to you that you introduce the child to something (a religion, rugby, etc) then you will find no fight from me and I would not use the word here myself. Which is why I asked above if someone was calling you abusive for buying a rugby top.

If it were to mean however, the forcing of a beleif or other on a child to the detriment and even the wholesale avoidance of all other things, I would be of a different mindset. Buy your kids rugby tops all you want, but if they come home some day and say "Daddy I want to play soccer" or "Daddy I want to be a muslim" and you say "No son, youre a rugbyplayer/Christian and that is that" or "No son, Islam/soccer is evil and Chritianity/Rugby is the only true and good one" then this is a different kettle of fish. That is what indoctrination means to me, trying to make someone something and avoiding allowing them to be anything else.

In other words, to repeat, labeling a kid as what you want it to be, and telling the kid that that is what it is, is a nasty thing to do. Introduce them to rugby all you like, but do not presume to tell them "You ARE a rugby player, that is what you ARE".

Clearly there is a difference between introducing someone to a sport/belief and indoctrinating them into it therefore. As with most words however people can correctly enough use it for both cases and clearly miss what the other person is actually saying.

Isn't this equally applicable to atheism?

I believe it should be up to the person themselves to decide what they believe, not their parents decision. I don't really like Dawkins to be honest, but that is more due to his personality rather than his beliefs, but I think he made a mistake with starting his atheist summer camps to combat theist summer camps. In a way it could be viewed as a bit hypocritical or in a more cynical way, as a money making scheme similar to a cult, which I am sure he his keen to avoid.

Turtwig

farna_boy wrote: »

Isn't this equally applicable to atheism?

Well I'm going to be pedantic here...

Atheism = One Idea : Rejection of theistic beliefs in God(s).

Religions usually entail ALOT more than one idea for its followers.

Applicable?
Yes.
Equally?
No.

nozzferrahhtoo

farna_boy wrote: »

Isn't this equally applicable to atheism?

If you do not mind me avoiding repeating myself, can you pretty please go back a few pages and read post #20 and #22. In short I would apply it to EVERYTHING, not just the examples I gave. I have not the space to give every example ever and no matter how many I give you could say "Isn't this equally applicable to....."

doctoremma

farna_boy wrote: »

Isn't this equally applicable to atheism?

No. An atheist household isn't one where they revel in burning bibles and decrying religion. An atheist household is (or should be) one where religion isn't mentioned, a non-event as default. Until your child comes home and asks why some people go to church. You reply "Because some people believe in god (and explain what that means)". I'd be inclined not to mention my own beliefs unless explicitly asked.

philologos

Malty T: Atheism is perhaps one idea, but it influences other ideas, and it comes with a variety of different outcomes.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It would be a very hard argument to make that you were dumbing down a child's intelligence by indoctrinating them.

Ok. Hopefully my last post on this issue as it was only a side note originally. You suggested that the comforting thoughts of grandma in heaven is a positive to a child while also accusing atheists of dumbing an argument down. I suggested that by disregarding truth in place of happiness you are dumbing down a persons intellect i.e teaching them something as fact when you cannot know it's a fact simply because it's comforting.

Naz_st

farna_boy wrote: »

Isn't this equally applicable to atheism?

How can this be applicable to atheism exactly? The default position of a child at birth is lack of belief in God (and every other concept). So how is it possible to force a "lack of belief" (that they already lack) onto them?

By "not indoctrinating" them one is, in fact, indoctrinating them?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Revelation-based religions such as christianity fail not because there's no evidence to support them one way or the other, but primarily because of their many epistemological and logical problems.

Interesting. I'm not in agreement that this is the reasoning behind people rejecting their faith however.

As for these problems I'm curious to what exactly you are referring to.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Atheism is perhaps one idea, but it influences other ideas, and it comes with a variety of different outcomes.

Could teaching a child that there's no such things as fairies have negative influences? What about the other infinite things I could teach them that don't exist?

What about teaching my child, not specifically that there's no such thing as God, but that he/she should think critically about everything, examine the evidence and not take things for granted. Even with the predisposition of the child's brain to believe in the supernatural, he/she would then be capable of discerning why belief in God is as ridiculous as fairies.